Tuesday, March 19, 2013

"We hold these truths tobe self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty andthe pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence of the ThirteenColonies.

Rights. Self-evident. Unalienable. Endowed by their Creator. Think about the above statement and those words. Dwell upon it.

When you read the word 'unalienable' you first need to understand what it meant in 1776, just like "well regulated" in the Second Amendment isn't always fully understood today. The first step can be found in the manner it was pronounced: un-a-lien-able.

Impossible. IMPOSSIBLE to take away or give up... is your mind now really contemplating what a Right truly is?

From time to time I hear statements and comments from people who, at first blush, speak about unalienable Rights and then, sometimes in the same breath, act as though Rights are privileges.

As a very recent example, I was taken aback by a statement from Dr Benjamin Carson on Glen Beck recently. When he was asked if you 'should be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon?' he responded "It depends on where you live". I almost fell out of my chair. <see video: http://youtu.be/WAiliwfeClo >

What shocked me was how could a man, who I've heard speak of unalienable Rights and a man who was correct on so many other things, be so completely off base on this? What sort of perverse thought process could, in one instance quote The Declaration of Independence and go so far as to call the referenced Creator God (which I agree with) and then go on to say that man or group of them (ie. a state legislative body) could overrule the Rights given to a person by God Himself simply because that person chose to live in an urban environment.

It's beyond ridiculous. Absurd, ludicrous... insane even. I simply cannot wrap my mind around such a deranged thought process. Now whether or not you believe that The Creator is God, your parents, Nature, Gaia, Buddha, Mohammad or who or what ever, the Rights exist, and in fact PRE DATE the United States government and the Constitution (as evidenced in the DOI and the BOR).

How can a person claim one thing and then go 180 degrees against it? I cannot fathom such logic.. or lack there of and it certainly isn't limited to Dr Carson, I simply use him as the most recent example and I am not purposefully singling him out, if you follow my articles you know this.

This is the same logic used in states where carry permits/licenses are given out on a "may issue" basis. As if your beating heart wasn't enough evidence you have something valuable to protect. As if the state was a master over the People and had the (legitimate) authority to even pretend to have the power to grant you the Right of self defense. Anything that is granted is a privilege, not a Right. The last time I checked, these united States of America were still bound together as a Constitutional Republic.

Some people consider me a single issue person (or voter). I certainly am not, but I can see how someone would think I might be. For me, the litmus test of a persons thought process, or what is going on in their mind, can be surmised by their position on the Right to self defense. RKBA. Because if they cannot grasp something as simple and fundamental as the Right to self defense, they don't have the mental or logical capabilities to properly approach any other issue.

If someone cannot grasp the most basic principle of freedom and liberty, no matter if they happen to be correct on other issues, they do not possess the ability to judge for themselves if there is anything the state cannot do, or in this case anything the state can prevent you from doing or take away from you. Such a thought process is completely antithetical to a Constitutional Republic and to freedom and liberty.

Your Rights are not predicated on anything. You have them and no matter what vile piece of legislation is passed, anything that restricts your Right to self defense is both violative of the Laws of The Creator and the Constitution of these united States of America.

I leave you with this:

"You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." - John Adams

In Liberty,
Prometheus
www.facebook.com/GunReviews

Authors note: You will find in my writings that when I refer to a persons Rights, in this article or others, I capitalize the letter "r". This is not by accident and it is not something I invented. When you read through the history of the Founding Fathers and other great men and women throughout history, they too capitalize the word Right as well. Right, used in such a context, conveys so much more than how the word is commonly used today. I urge my readers to research the word, it's history and it's deep meaning and fully appreciate the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

Friday, March 15, 2013

There is an effort underway that spans multiple states and multiple court cases to force all state governments to respect the citizens rights to self-defense. In 2010 attorney Alan Gura filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against several New York based defendants for denying NY citizens their right to obtain conceal carry permits.

While 49 states have concealed carry laws on their books, many are "may issue" states vs. "shall issue" states. "May issue" states can deny a citizen a permit for any number of arbitrary reasons as the state has no legal obligation to issue a permit. "Shall issue" states must issue a permit if an application is filed unless the applicant is barred from owning firearm under federal law.

20 states along with the CATO and others have filed Amici Curiae (friends of the court) briefs to urge the Supreme Court of the United States hear Mr. Gura's lawsuit (Kachalsky, et al v. Cacase, et al). The NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition also filed briefs, however it is thought that the 20 states coming on board may be enough to have the case heard by the SCOTUS.

The importance of winning this case at the SCOTUS level can not be over stated. A favorable ruling would force May Issue states such as NY and California to issue permits to all citizens who file applications that are legally able to own a firearm.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

From coast to coast sheriffs are coming under attack for simply following the Constitution. The sheriff is the highest law enforcement officialin a county. Period. Higher than the state police and higher than any federal agent from any federal agency. As an elected official they are ourlast line of defense against a tyrannical government.

In Colorado, Sheriffs who are vocal about honoring their Oaths to the Constitution are being threatened... by legislators.

Sheriff Terry Maketa, of El Paso County, has received a message from the Sheriffs Association of Colorado threatening that the democrat leadership in the Colorado house may alter the pay of sheriffs if they vocally speak out about gun control.

Sheriff Maketa said "it borders on extortion", "blackmail" and "attempting to influence a public official". It is absolutely outrageous to think that something like this could happen in America, it is blatant corruption. Sheriff Maketa summed it up this way "You will obey or you will pay".

I would suggest that if sheriffs salaries are adversely affected, residents of counties in Colorado make up that difference out of their own pockets. Sheriffs who uphold their Oaths MUST BE SUPPORTED.

I urge each of you to reach out to your local sheriff, no matter where you live, and let them know you expect them to honor their Oaths. You should also make sure you tell them you will support them, one hundred percent and in any way, when they honor their Oath.

Monday, March 11, 2013

We've probably all heard the term "carrying your own water", but have you actually stopped and considered what it means?

Everyone likes to claim they have Rights, most people at least. Do they actually have them? Like the first quote, I'm sure most of you have also heard this one: "You only have those Rights which you are willing to defend, with force if necessary."

In the fight for our Rights, our Freedom and our Liberty, are you actually carrying 'your own water'? Or are you relying on the tireless efforts of a small minority to do such simple and menial tasks as writing a letter or making a phone call?

When the February 8th rally came, for example, did you try your best to get off of work? Did you say it was 'too cold'? Did you say "maybe the next one"? How much would it have actually cost you to show up for those two hours?

Many say they will fight for their Rights. I'm not so sure. In Indianapolis, one of the nation wide rallies was held on the same day as the famous Indy 500 gun show. Thousands packed the show. Hundreds waited 3+ hours in the cold... just to get inside.

Just a few miles away, perhaps a 10 minute drive if you made all the lights, 1,000 Patriots stood outside. Not for the privilege of getting peruse generally overpriced merchandise being sold to panic buyers, they stood outside for one reason- To DEMAND their Rights not be ignored.

To be fair, I'm sure not everyone at that show knew about the rally. However many did... in fact, virtually every vendor there had been notified and asked to put a flier on their table, informing people of the nation wide rally that Saturday.

It's ironic that in NY 5,000 people turned out at their State Capital as opposed to 1,000 in Indiana.. especially when attendance at the show, less than 10 minutes away, exceeded 5,000.

Freedom isn't free. It's become a cheap catch phrase in the US and inside these borders, not many want to pay the cost of a tank of gasoline for theirs. Freedom is being lost at an alarming rate in America and it's because the vast majority aren't willing to pay anything to keep it. People say they will fight, but when they won't even give up 2 hours of their time now, do we really expect them to put their lives on the line later, if need be?

Will you carry your water? Going forward we must work together, every single one us must work, relentless, to defend their Rights. If you won't do it yourself, how can you expect others to do it for you?

I never point out a problem without offering solutions. One of those is to make sure you are informed and have the information to inform your friends, family and coworkers. Yes, your coworkers too. You don't have to beat them over the head with it, but if you don't occasionally tell them, who will?

Speaking of beating people up, do you know a fellow gun owner how is letting you carry their water? Call them out on it. Make sure you let them know how deplorable, selfish and cowardly their inaction is.

Stay connected with us as we fight, together, for Freedom and Liberty.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Dianne Feinstein sat before a Senate committee yesterday and outlined the details of her new proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. While watching the video on C-SPAN something caught my attention.

At 4:15 in the C-SPAN video an aide behind Mrs. Feinstein unveiled a cue card that displayed a semi-automatic AR15 rifle made by Colt Firearms. Of course the first thing that I noticed was that Mrs. Feinstein had labeled the rifle as an Assault Rifle and not an Assault Weapon. The accepted definition of an "assault rifle" is a rifle that is capable of semi-automatic OR fully-automatic fire. As usual, Mrs. Feinstein is purposely trying to confuse the issue.

The term "assault weapon" was coined by Mrs. Feinstein and crew back in 1993 when they were working on the original Clinton era ban. It was intended to describe not only "assault rifles" (modern sporting rifles like the AR15) but carbines, pistols and shotguns with certain evil features. It too was also intended to confuse the issue and to instill fear in the uneducated by linking semi-automatic firearms (rifles, pistols and shotguns) to military assault rifles which were already heavily regulated, or banned, at the time.

The next thing I noticed was the "barrel shroud". Right below the description for a "barrel shroud" a big red arrowed pointed towards the handguard of the rifle. What? I thought to myself, "Is she really this ignorant or is she trying to accomplish something else here?" That's not a "barrel shroud", that's a handguard!

Brown Bess Musket

The handguard of a rifle is a necessary feature that's been used to protect the shooters hand since the musket was invented. No one in their right mind would grab a bare barrel when shooting a firearm, not even a musket much less a semi-automatic rifle. The heat generated by firing the rifle would quickly make touching the barrel not just uncomfortable but unsafe. With only a few rounds fired a shooter would get 2nd or even 3rd degree burns from grabbing a bare barrel. The handguard isn't an optional item, it's a necessity for the safe operation of any rifle.

I thought for sure this had to be a mistake, perhaps an aide that knows even less about firearms than Mrs. Feinstein was to blame.

Seeking clarity and trying to find the source of this confusion I opened my copy of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 which is available on Mrs. Feinsteins website and searched for "barrel shroud". There it was on page 11, the definition of a barrel shroud:

15 ‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—

16 ‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or

17 partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire18

arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire19

arm from heat generated by the barrel; and

20 ‘‘(B) does not include—

21 ‘‘(i) a slide that partially or completely en22

closes the barrel; or

23 ‘‘(ii) an extension of the stock along the

24 bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or

25 substantially encircle the barrel.

Model 1917 Enfield

I was floored. She has described a modern front handguard to the letter. She really is trying to make the handguard that (1) evil feature that when coupled with a detachable magazine makes the firearm an "assault weapon/rifle" under the new AWB bill.

The musket would be excluded from this definition as the front handguard only encompasses 1/2 of the barrel... although is 1/2 "substantial"? However the 1917 Enfield, 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Mini-14, AR15, AK, etc. all have "barrel shrouds" as defined by the AWB of 2013.

Couple this with the fact Mrs. Feinstein also bans grenade launchers (already banned), rocket launchers (do not exist on rifles), and forward pistol grips on pistols (already banned) and we see that the AWB of 2013 is another example of poorly written knee jerk legislation. The AWB of 2013 is intended to confuse the public and ultimately make firearms laws so convoluted that through interpretation by the ATF almost any semi-automatic firearm could be banned.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

I
don't even know where to begin today. From legislation wanting cops to
go door to door in WA, to Magpul about to be kicked out of CO to
legislators wanting women facing a rapist to use a whistle... hold on,
this is going to be a very bumpy blog ride.

Before
I say "I told you going door to door is what the ultimate gun grabbers
plan is", let me use this quote from a life long democrat instead:

“I’m
a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life...
But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to
fight a government takeover.” -Lance Palmer.

There are several
cosponsors of the bill who are now back peddling because word is out
about the door to door search portion of the bill. Some are claiming
they didn't read the entire bill. While I don't doubt many politicians
actually read the bills they cosponsor, let alone vote for, I have a
feeling they are just trying to make excuses to save face as public
backlash will likely reach a frenzy when this blog post goes live.

If you live in WA, you'd better contact your reps and the Governor. Right now.

Seriously,
this blog post will still be here in 15 minutes, come back and finish
it after you make your calls and fire off those emails.

Before I
get to Colorado, keep in mind all the other Rights being violated in
addition to the Second Amendment. While I primarily focus on RKBA and
it's enumeration in the 2A, I must point out the insanity being employed
by legislators from top to bottom both State and Federal. It's just as
asinine to think that an interstate commerce clause could be used to
justify background checks (at a federal level) as it is to think that
exercising your God (or Gaja or natural born) given Right to self
defense, which just so happens to be enumerated in the Second Amendment,
would somehow negate your Right to be secure in your persons, papers
and possessions. Which just so happen to be enumerate in the Fourth
Amendment.

This isn't a blog about your Rights, where they came
from or the fact that they existed prior to 1787 when the Constitution
was signed in to existence as the supreme law of the land so I won't get
into facts like the Supremacy clause only deals with the Constitution
and BOR, not every single law passed by Congress. So lets move on.

Oh
Colorado... you poor bastards. Four anti-gun bills passed in the House
and get your rape whistle ready ladies, things are going from bad to
worse.

The first bill is about universal background checks. For
those of you who aren't familiar with what that means. Read it as:
Universal Gun Registration.

Right now, in virtually every state
it is legal for a person to sell their private firearm to another person
without going through a federal firearms dealer and using a form 4473
and the associated background check. Keep in mind this isn't a carte
blanche check to sell to anyone. Laws vary in requirements but
generally you aren't allowed to give or sell a firearm to a person you
know is a prohibited person, a minor (by state law, remember the 18/21
rule is for FFL's only) and so forth. Don't let the gun grabbers fool
you on that.

Universal registration or background checks as the
gun grabbers would call it, is the first step in confiscation. Everyone
who has ever read a history book or listened to the stories of the
survivors of genocide, democide or the holocaust knows this is true. In
just the 20th century alone, over 100 million citizens were killed by
their own governments.

The gun grabbers know the term
'registration' is toxic on the national level and in most states is also
just as toxic. So they are now using the term Universal Background
checks instead.

For those not familiar with the laws pertaining to
those once yellow, now white, background check forms (4473), the FFL
must hold on to them for 20 years before they can destroy them. Should
they close shop for any reason, they must send all the 4473's from the
past 20 years in to the federal government. FFL's are non transferable,
so every time your local gun shop has changed hands... yep, all their
4473's less than 20 years old were turned over.

Right now, the
only thing stopping the federal government from knowing exactly who has
what, with the stroke of a pen, is that locating all those private
transfers would be a very daunting task.
For all those "I lost
my guns in a tragic boating accident" and "I sold them at the gun show
last month" guys... are you paying attention? Your dream of having a
cache of (rusted and useless) guns buried in the back forty is over.

Next
is a bill about the fees and recovery of background check costs in CO.
Visit the link if you'd like to know more, but ask yourself, why
wouldn't they just use the 'free' federal one? See universal
registration from bill one if you'd like the answer.

Third...
Magpul (kudos to them for standing tall) is probably moving soon because
the CO Senate will be voting on this shortly. A ban on "high
capacity". 8 rounds for a shotgun and 15 for everything else. Why?
Because your life isn't as valuable in CO as a politicians or a police
officers. Silly proles.
Fourth and certainly not last is a ban on
college campus carry. This is where Rep Joe Salazar suggests call
boxes, safe zones and whistles. Apparently women aren't intelligent
enough to realize when they are being raped-

“It’s why we have
call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles.
Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you
don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like
someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in
trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you
pop … pop around [sic] at somebody.” Rep Joe Salazar, CO.

Other
law makers from CO in support of this bill had similar statements
showing complete lack of regard for the safety and well being of college
students and in particular young women. I'm livid over this. I'm
beside myself. These people are insane... or perhaps just evil.

How
evil must a person be that they want women to be defenseless against a
rapist? Evil, evil to their very core. Yes I said it, they are evil. I
submit to you that a person who wants rapists to be safe from injury
while committing their crimes is evil. It's time to call them what they
are. Evil.
As a father of three daughters, I can't imagine
sending them off to college, or anywhere else, with a whistle for
"defense". It's absurd.

For those of you in Colorado, please contact your reps and the Governor right now. Don't wait.
House 1-800-811-7647
Senate 1-888-473-8136
Governor (303) 866-2471

For
those of you in the rest of the country, keep the pressure up. Both at
the State and Federal levels. Forget about yourselves. Your children
and grandchildren are counting on YOU. Because when it comes down to
it, you and I will be the only ones to blame should we allow their
Rights to be taken from them.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

We'll be working hard to keep all of you up to date as we move forward.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Victory…
in Illinois? This time not because of a court decision but because of
the tireless efforts of the supporters of self defense. YOU.

On
the first Sunday of 2013, after a surprise session of the Judiciary
committee who sought to meet with only 24 hours notice, their plans of
sneaking in a ban of virtually 50% of semiautomatic rifles and as high
as 80% of semiautomatic handguns, not to mention “high capacity”
magazines went up in smoke.

You can watch as the Chairwoman admits to the deluge of phone calls, emails and faxes:

Massive gun groups didn’t do that. YOU did that.

Gun
rights groups like the NRA are massive behemoths, that if given time,
can be very effective. They work on a different level however.
Virtually no one person can sound the alarm on a Saturday afternoon, or
even with a full days notice at the NRA. Smaller groups like the GOA or
SAF, while amazingly powerful, especially at their victories in the
courts, move faster but not at the speed of YOU.

Saturday the call
went out on social media, like a trumpet blast. The ISRA (Illinois
State Rifle Association), one of the first groups to give notice,
blasted out to it’s members the news, a surprise session. From there,
word spread via facebook and twitter, from person to person, email to
email, text message to text message.

Ladies and
Gentlemen, the fight for our Freedoms is something we must do ourselves.
Each and every one of us. As often as it takes.

The road we
have ahead of us could likely be a long one. We need to prepare
ourselves and have the stamina to call, even though we have called a
dozen times prior. To send that fiftieth fax, the one hundredth email.
Every single time an assault on our freedoms and our liberty is on the
line.

YOU can make a difference, YOU are the only one who can. I
submit now, that if in a state like Illinois we can fight off those who
would strip us of our freedoms, we can do it nationwide and without
compromise… but not without YOU.

I will be keeping up on pending
legislation and the fight for our rights as my priority for the time
being, I invite you to join me at www.facebook.com/gunreviews as we fight, together, to preserve our remaining Rights.